Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Reformatted to fit your screen.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


               

Passenger carrying turbine

Don't worry, you won't get burnt or chopped up
  (+4, -1)
(+4, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

An aviation expert recently stated in an interview that large diameter jet engines are quieter than small ones and more efficient, at the same thrust. Assuming that is true, a very large engine should be built around the fuselage. The plane would probably look like an oversized MIG-21, but without the cockpit. The fuselage in the center of the engine has to be stabilized by gyro or other means so it doesn't rotate with the turbine blades. At the airport the fuselage is pulled out and towed to the gate while another one is moved in so the engine can be reused immediately after refueling.

Passengers may feel uncomfortable with the idea of all that burning fuel around them so there should be an emergency eject mechanism that kicks out the fuselage and lets it decent safely (no necessarily bump free) with an oversized parasail. To make up for the lost window seats cameras are installed around the outside and passengers can select individually which one is displayed on their little in-seat screens.

kbecker, Dec 03 2003

Mig 21 for those who need a picture http://www.combatai...aircraft/fmig21.asp
[engineer1, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]

[link]






       Scares the hell outta me, but (+) for the audacity....
normzone, Dec 03 2003
  

       bird strike anyone?
sporn, Dec 04 2003
  

       While larger turbines may be more efficient for a given thrust level, they also tend to be heavier. Heavier engines mean less payload. So while fuel consumption per lb overall may decrease, the fuel consumption per lb of cargo may actually increase.   

       Economics aside, it's a neat concept. I say keep the windows. I'd love to see the whirling blades and hot gasses inches away...   

       The fuselage wouldn't need gyro-stabilization. It could be supported by the stators.
gabe, Dec 04 2003
  

       I've once heard helicopters referred to as "600 parts all moving at the same time to see which one can break first" ... but the helicopters have certain baked-in saftey features like their ability to controll decent by auto-rotation in case of engine failure, etc. ... this could use some failsafes, but I like the idea ... very fresh half-baked goodness.
Letsbuildafort, Dec 04 2003
  

       Solves the disc burst problems, and in case of engine failure you still have the ability to glide. Might take a while before you could unload passengers once you landed, waiting the turbine slows down, lot of momentum there.
scubadooper, Jun 10 2004
  

       Too complicated.   

       There is a better solution: Turboprops are more efficient than turbines, even large ones. Basically, turboprops are very large turbofan engines (the type used by most passenger aircraft) without the outer ducting.
kinemojo, Mar 20 2006
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle